On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> * Smart shutdown
>> Smart shutdown should wait for all the waiting backends to be acked, and
>> should not cause them to forcibly exit. But this leads shutdown to get stuck
>> infinitely if there is no walsender at that time. To enable them to be acked
>> even in that situation, we need to change postmaster so that it accepts the
>> replication connection even during smart shutdown (until we reach
>> PM_SHUTDOWN_2 state). Postmaster has already accepted the superuser
>> connection to cancel backup during smart shutdown. So I don't think that
>> the idea to accept the replication connection during smart shutdown is so
>> ugly.
>>
>> * Fast shutdown
>> I agree with you about fast shutdown. Fast shutdown should cause all the
>> backends including waiting ones to exit immediately. At that time, the
>> non-acked backend should not return the success, according to the
>> definition of sync rep. So we need to change a backend so that it gets rid
>> of itself from the waiting queue and exits before returning the success,
>> when it receives SIGTERM. This change leads the waiting backends to
>> do the same even when pg_terminate_backend is called. But since
>> they've not been acked yet, it seems to be reasonable to prevent them
>> from returning the COMMIT.
>>
>> Comments? I'll create the patch barring objection.
>
> The fast smart shutdown part of this problem has been addressed. The
Ugh. I mean "the fast shutdown", of course, not "the fast smart
shutdown". Anyway, point is:
fast shutdown now OK
smart shutdown still not OK
do you want to write a patch?
:-)
> smart shutdown case still needs work, and I think the consensus was
> that your proposal above was the best way to go with it.
>
> Do you still want to work up a patch for this? If so, I can review.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company